Originally single sentences have here been repeatedly broken up and scattered about amongst other similarly broken-up passages: we can still trace the motive for this procedure. I first print them as they stand, double-bracketing, at the end, the interestingly obvious theological “correction” that immediately follows a most authentic, directly contrary, statement.
“Non credo che si possa trovare contentezza da comparare a quella di un’ anima del Purgatorio, eccetto quella de’ Santi di Paradiso: ed ogni giorno questa contentezza cresce per l’influsso di Dio in esse anime, il quale và crescendo, siccome si và consumando l’impedimento dell’ influsso. La ruggine del peccato è l’impedimento, e il fuoco và consumando la ruggine: e così l’anima sempre più si và discuoprendo al divino influsso. Siccome una cosa coperta non può corrispondere alla riverberazione del sole, non per diffetto del sole, che di continuo luce, ma per l’opposizione della copertura: così sè si consumerà la copertura, si discoprirà la cosa al sole, e tanto più corrisponderà alla riverberazione, quanto la copertura più si andrà consumando.
“Così la ruggine (cioè il peccato) è la copertura dell’ anima, e nel Purgatorio si và consumando per il fuoco: e quanto più si consuma, tanto sempre più corrisponde al vero sole Iddio: però tanto cresce la contentezza, quanto manca la ruggine e si discopre al divin raggio: e così l’uno cresce e l’altro manca, finchè sia finito il tempo. [Non manca però la pena, ma solo il tempo di stare in essa pena.]”
Here the last (double-bracketed) sentence is a deliberate theological correction, for it formally contradicts the precise point and necessary consequences of the whole preceding, most authentic, specially characteristic doctrine.—In that preceding part three parallel illustrative similes (between the intact general statement and the equally untouched general conclusion) have been broken up, and dovetailed into each other, in a most bewildering manner; and this from a (possibly but semi-conscious) desire to obscure a characteristic feature of her teaching. I shall now give these five sentences in English, and will disentangle the three middle ones from each other.—The general statement: “I do not think that a contentment could be found comparable to that of a soul in Purgatory, except that of the Saints in Paradise; and every day this contentment is on the increase.”—The three images descriptive of the cause and mode of this increase, arranged according to the increasing materiality of their picturings. (1) “The influx of God into the soul goes increasing, in proportion as it consumes the impediment to that influx, and as the soul opens itself out more and more to the influx.” (2) “As an object, if covered up, cannot correspond to the beating of the sun upon it, not through any defect in the sun, which indeed shines on continuously, but because of the opposition of the covering, (so that) if this covering be consumed, the object will open itself out to the sun: even so does the soul in Purgatory more and more correspond with the true sun, God, when its covering, sin, gets consumed.” (3) “Rust is an impediment to fire, and fire goes consuming rust more and more: so does the rust, that is the sin, of the souls in Purgatory, get consumed by the fire; and their contentment grows in proportion as the rust diminishes and as the soul uncovers itself to the divine ray (of fire).”—The conclusion, which perhaps applies grammatically only to the last image, but which, as to the sense, most certainly refers to all three pictures. “And thus does the one (the influx, sun-light, fire-ray) increase, and does the other (the impediment, covering, rust) decrease, until the time (necessary for the whole process) be accomplished.”—The three images are in no case supplementary, but each is complete and parallel to the other two. As the fire that meets with the obstacle of the rust is the same fire as that which removes the rust, so is it in all three cases: in each case God, and His direct presence and action, are the “influx,” “sun-light,” “fire-ray”; in each case a sinful, morally imperfect, habit of the soul is the “impediment,” “covering,” “rust”; and in each case the suffering as well as the joy, and the changing relations between the two, proceed exclusively from the differing relations of but two forces: the soul and God. It is only the peculiar, Redactional dovetailing of the fragments of these three parallel similes which now conveys the impression that the divine sun-light and fire-ray reaches the uncovered soul in proportion as the soul’s covering and rust is destroyed by material fire; and to convey this very impression, was, no doubt, the motive of this dovetailing. The authentic passage on p. 178b, tells how the same divine fire which, at first, pains because it has still to purify the soul, increasingly fills the soul with joy in proportion as it can penetrate the soul unopposed: a doctrine also explicitly taught by Catherine, in her dialogue with Vernazza as to the effect of a drop of Love were it to fall into Hell (pp. 94c, 95b).
3. Third paragraph of Chapter Third.
The much-tormented Chapter Third has, at the opening of its third paragraph (p. 172b), an interesting theological “correction.” The complete passage now reads: “E perchè le anime che sono nel Purgatorio [sono senza colpa di peccato perciò non] hanno impedimento tra Dio e loro, [salvo che quella pena, la quale le ha ritardate, che] l’istinto non ha potuto avere la sua perfezione: e vedendo per certezza quanto importi ogni minimo impedimento, ed essere per necessità di giustizia ritardato esso instinto: di qui nasce un estremo fuoco.” The bracketed words are two interdependent glosses. For though in some other, possibly authentic, passages the souls in Purgatory “non hanno colpa di peccato,” this most certainly applies only to mortal sin or a still active, formal affirmation of venial sin; since the very raison d’être of Purgatory is “the rust of sin,” pp. 169b, 170c, 171b, 173c, 181a; “the stain of sin,” pp. 169b, 171c, 176b; “a mote of imperfection,” p. 176a; “a stain of imperfection,” p. 176b; “a passive defect,” p. 170b; “opposition to the will of God,” p. 177b; an “impediment of sin,” 177b. And the Vita-proper says quite plainly: “Both Purgatory and Hell are made for Sin: Hell to punish and Purgatory to purge it” (p. 64b).—And this gloss is in strict conformity with the glosses that affirm static suffering: in both cases all change is excluded from the soul in Purgatory, since this Purgatory is neither intrinsically necessary nor amelioratively operative within the soul.
4. First paragraph of Chapter Fourth.
Chapter Fourth is comparatively easy, but probably largely secondary, because uncharacteristic of her teaching. Yet it contains a “correction” deserving of notice. I give the two sentences which prove both points. “Quei dell’ Inferno … hanno seco la colpa infinitamente, e la pena [non però tanta, quanta meritano; ma pur quella] che hanno è senza fine. Ma quei del Purgatorio hanno solamente la pena, perciocchè la colpa fù cancellata nel punto della morte … e così essa pena è finita, e và sempre mancando [quanto al tempo, come s’è detto]” (p. 173a).—The double-bracketed passage, directly referring to the gloss on p. 171b, is, like the latter, a theological “correction.” But also the single-bracketed words are a gloss, since they disturb both grammar and rhythm of the passage, and introduce a point foreign to the argument which is being conducted in this place.—Indeed, even the remaining parts of these sentences are misleading, since Catherine held no such simple and absolute distinction as infinite guilt in the one case, and apparently no moral imperfection in the other. For of the lost she says: “If any creature could be found which did in nowise participate in the divine goodness, that creature would be as malignant as God is good” (p. 33b); and as to the souls in Purgatory, they are imperfect in precise proportion as they do and can suffer.
5. First two sentences of Chapter Fifth.
Here we find the strongest instance of the strange clumsiness characteristic of the theological “corrections.” I give the sentences as they now stand, simply numbering the sentences thus amalgamated, and bracketing at once the undoubted glosses.